ILNews

Opinions Nov. 16, 2012

November 16, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marybeth Lebo v. State of Indiana
46A05-1202-CR-104
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s judgment in denying motion to dismiss charges of failure to report child abuse or neglect. Lebo argued the charges were not permissible because they came after the statute of limitations had passed but the COA disagreed, finding the Legislature’s intent was to make the failure to report a continuing offense. Otherwise, the court stated, the duty to report would be limited to the day on which the individual comes to believe abuse is taking place.

The Marling Family Trust v. Allstate Ins. Company
49A02-1203-CT-186
Civil tort/trust. Reverses the trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Allstate and remands to determine whether the loss is covered under an insurance policy. The trust purchased a house at sheriff’s sale after a foreclosure but had established an equitable lien in policy proceeds under an existing homeowner’s policy and therefore was entitled to receive funds from the policy in the event of an insured loss, the appellate court held.

Kohl's Indiana, L.P. and Kohl's Dept. Store, Inc. v. Dennis Owens, et al.
82A05-1203-PL-103
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Area Plan Commission and the Board of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County, holding that neither body accepted a common obligation to complete the project to build a Kohl’s department store on the west side of Evansville, and that Kohl’s cannot recover on a theory implied in law because a contract with the Board of Commissioners required Kohl’s to complete public infrastructure improvements at its expense.

Sharmain J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1204-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms conviction of illegal possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Roosevelt D. Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1205-PC-375
Post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Mattie A. Tedrow and Mary L. Pierson v. Coyeville Belcher as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Everett D. Belcher, Jr.; and Lynn R. Belcher (NFP)
59A01-1204-EU-196
Estate/unsupervised. Affirms trial court decision to uphold the will of Tedrow and Belcher’s father.

William Emry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A03-1204-CR-274
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

BCC Products, Inc. and Roger Brunette, Jr. v. Roger Brunette, Sr., and Pauline Brunette (NFP)
41A01-1201-CC-28
Collections. Affirms trial court decision in favor of defendants.

Albert Lindsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-333
Criminal. Affirms conviction and enhancement of a count of trespassing from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony.

Bernard Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1203-CR-104
Criminal. Affirms six-year sentence for Class C felony criminal confinement.

Jerry Kaiser, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1203-CR-124
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of methamphetamine.

Michael Ramos v. Robertson's Apartments (NFP)
71A03-1203-SC-107
Small claims. Affirms trial court denial of request for appointment of guardian ad litem and request for damages in excess of the small claims jurisdictional maximum.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT